Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geopolitical Information Service

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dennis - 2¢ 16:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geopolitical Information Service

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. No secondary sources, just a "Pipeline Magazine" article with a staff byline quoting a member of the Geopolitical Information Service talking about a pipeline, but saying nothing about the Service itself. McGeddon (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Tristanbacon1: I've added some more secondary sources the page - are they appropriate secondary sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristanojbacon (talk • contribs) 14:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, these are all just articles that briefly mention or quote the Geopolitical Information Service, or which have been written by GIS staff who are credited as "[...] writes for geopolitical-info.com" in the byline. The sources don't tell us anything about the Geopolitical Information Service, and WP:NCORP requires an organisation to have been "the subject of significant coverage". We need multiple, independent sources that actually describe the GIS in some detail. --McGeddon (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I was only able to found their own publications and press releases, but nothing that would support notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.